Education and Skills Bill

My Lords, in his briefing notes, the Minister reminds us that this is a landmark piece of legislation. In particular, he tells us that for the first time in over 30 years, we are changing the education leaving age. He looks to history, as an historian would, and calls to mind that in 1918 HAL Fisher considered keeping children in full or part-time education until 18. That was never implemented, not only because of post-war austerity but because even then there were strong differences of opinion about the best method of vocational education: work apprenticeships, school training or a mixture of the two. The Bill and future decisions will have to resolve those problems, which Fisher failed to do in 1918. They must resolve them if the extension of the leaving age is to work. The Minister knows as well as I do that problems related to vocational training have bedevilled English education for more than a century. If we are to resolve those difficulties, we must first establish, absolutely and completely, dedicated technical colleges devoted to serving respected—I underline that word—vocational qualifications. I have bored this House too often on this, but those colleges should be modelled on those that exist on the continent, particularly in Germany and Holland. We must not be under any illusion—this should govern all our discussions—that this will be an easy task. Such colleges will be expensive. Technical vocational education is very expensive. In my last years as headmaster of St Paul’s, we offered a technical qualification, even though it was an academic school, and it cost more than pure science. We are talking about large amounts of money. For that reason, state support will be needed. It is not enough for my party to talk about industry or parents doing it because we are talking about large sums of money. If we establish these colleges, it will be crucial to appoint staff who have the confidence of industry and, possibly more important, of the pupils. I stress that it will be necessary for the department to avoid temporary solutions to the difficulties—which departments and Governments are prone to—by bussing pupils to a variety of schools over a wide area in order to offer a range of courses. As an ex-headmaster, I assure the Minister that that will not work. It would be time-consuming, difficult to administer and, knowing pupils of that age, a lot of them will be lost in the passage. If not run properly, or at all, it could bring the project into disrepute. Further—and this has eluded us for a long time—we must define precisely the object and nature of vocational education so that it gains massive respect, such as it enjoys on the continent, from society, industry and, more importantly, the pupils themselves. At this point, I must pay respect to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and my noble friend Lord Baker in providing pilot schemes for vocational colleges in Birmingham and the West Midlands. I must also add my respects to the Minister himself, who has given enormous support to these schemes. Therein lies the hope for applying them to the whole country. I turn to the vocational diplomas, another pillar of this project, and here I enter areas of controversy—as is the nature of my life. I maintain, and I hope that the Minister can find a certain agreement here, that the prestige of these new diplomas will be weakened if they are designed so as to satisfy not only the needs of vocational learning but those of traditional courses based on book learning and the traditional university processes. It has proved very difficult to have one diploma satisfying two masters: that has failed on a number of occasions. Of course, this business of trying to combine diplomas that satisfy vocational education and traditional university courses is not followed anywhere in Europe, which is where these vocational diplomas enjoy substantial prestige. This landmark legislation—and I agree with the Minister that that is what it is—will fail unless we get the issues of the colleges and diplomas right. Making education part or full-time to the age of 18 is a risky business. It is crucial to provide a structure that works well—that is important, and I support the Bill to that extent. If we fail in that, the ramifications will go on for many decades. Let me assure your Lordships that pupils aged 16 to 18 are not the easiest; I taught them for 30 years of my life, and they included quite a number of Members of this House. If they are being bussed from place to place, they can also be rather elusive. If we do not provide the right patterns for these diplomas and colleges, the young people will not accept them. At 16, they are old enough not to accept that. They will vote with their feet and the whole edifice will fall to the ground. Having said all of that, I am jolly glad that I am not a Minister. I am too old to even think of it, but I congratulate the Minister on this bold step and hope that he succeeds where that great Liberal historian, HAL Fisher, did not even dare to go. I hope that he avoids the fate of HAL Fisher, who lost office two years afterwards—I am sure that he will.